« The Class Dilemma: What Do You Do When You Don’t Like Your Class? | Home | Lessons From a PvP Server »
The Hype Problem: Misleading Gamers Until Launch Day
By Cameron Sorden | January 29, 2008
There’s an ongoing problem with game previews and pre-launch hype that’s pervasive in both major media outlets and the blogosphere at large. It’s a problem that affects all of us… gamers, developers, journalists, and bloggers. The problem is this: Nobody ever says anything bad about a game until after it comes out and after you’ve spent the $50 on the box. Previews and pre-launch interviews are unequivocally positive, and hands-on reports from journalists, formal or informal, are slanted towards the “but hey, they’ll probably fix it” mindset even when they’re not terribly impressed. Bloggers are better about this than major media (just ask Oakstout), but nobody likes to slam a new game out of the gate– especially if the flaws aren’t glaring. What’s the deal? Where was the warning when you blew $300 in 2007 on games you don’t play anymore? Why is it okay for us to repeatedly pony up $50-$70 for games that we play for a free month and then decide aren’t worth the time?
Frankly, 2007 was a bad year to be an MMO developer. Some games failed miserably. Some games just grossly undershot their developer expectations. Even games that did well had a decidedly underwhelming response. No one is really sure what the problem was, yet. Were we just stuck in Blizzard’s thrall all year? Did 2007’s game offerings suck? Why are people playing these games for two weeks just to say, “Meh. I’m going back to WoW.”? More importantly, why didn’t anyone warn us about the lack of staying power of any particular title? Are the players just bored with more of the same and so many available options?
It’s easy to tell people to vote with their wallets when they don’t like a game, but usually people are just talking about cutting off your monthly fees for a game you’ve already purchased. Am I the only one who feels a little bit cheated when I get less than a week of entertainment out of a game I paid $60 for? What is this… a console title? It’s even worse than that, because console games are designed to be a short experience– if you only play an MMOG for two weeks, it’s guaranteed you’re not getting your money’s worth. One of the reasons I play MMORPGs is for the value they provide. A monthly fee is a great deal for the entertainment time you can get out of a single game. Try comparing a month of Warcraft to a night at the movies and you’ll see what I mean. So who dropped the ball when everyone changes their tune about Fury a week after release? (Case in point: Preview - Fairly positive. / Review - Hands down negative.)
On the other hand, everyone tends to agree that it’s not fair to criticize games that aren’t launched yet, and a site that’s going to bash a developing game for being half-complete won’t be getting called back to look at the next in-progress title. But isn’t there some level of accountability? When your game is at the point where you’re giving the press hands-on time with it, shouldn’t they be assuming that they’re playing a near-finished product and be criticizing obviously flawed game design? I don’t mean to sound cynical, but listening to a game developer tell a journalist that they’re “still tweaking the mechanics of combat and will have it all ready in a few months” is getting to be a little too much like the boy who cried wolf. Frankly, I don’t think anyone believes developers anymore when they say “It’s broken now, but it will be ready at launch.” Yeah, I understand. Big projects are hard to manage effectively. But why isn’t it fixed now, when you’re showing it to the world via a press preview?
I feel like developers count on the gaming press a little too much to be their unofficial marketing team. It doesn’t matter if their game is broken because no one is gonna slam it until after release, and they’ll have money from box sales to keep plugging holes while people get settled in. However, I don’t think gamers will keep putting up with it forever. If your customers get burned too many times, you know what happens? They don’t buy a game at launch. They wait until the reviews come out and the journalists get serious about critically examining what they’re playing. Unfortunately, that hurts community. If no one is playing the game, the early adopters get bored with it, and then when the second wave comes, no one is left hanging around. Who’s to blame? The hype machine that screwed you once before. Fool me twice, shame on me.
So what’s the solution to this problem? Do journalists need to be more honest about what we’re previewing and not give everything a positive spin “just because?” Is that even possible in the competitive online climate? Or are bloggers and blogging reviews the way of the future? The problem there, of course, is that companies will want to show their games to blogs that do give that kind of positive spin. Nobody putting money into a game wants to show it to someone pre-release and hear that it’s “trite and broken” trumpeted all over the web. But what if it is trite and broken? Why isn’t it okay to say that? Don’t we have a duty not to lie to our readers about what we think? Or will this problem just fix itself, as games that are free-to-play and free-to-try replace the games that charge you up-front for the client? Is that business model doomed? Would we still have this problem if it were?
Ultimately, it’s the consumers who get hurt by the hype– and we’re all consumers. So why are we okay with repeatedly screwing ourselves and telling half-truths about games that are clearly going to flop, if that’s what we think? Why are we okay with saying mostly positive things about games that aren’t all that impressive and that no one will care about two weeks after launch? Why do we think it’s dumb to keep paying a monthly fee for the games that suck, but we’re totally complacent about no one warning us that buying the game in the first place is a waste?
How do we fix the Hype Problem?
Topics: Random |
January 30th, 2008 at 12:33 am
The problem is, the Tabula Rasa effect. The game was reviewed pre-release. People had problems with it. It got slammed once the NDA was lifted and the game didn’t do as well as expected upon release. What people that go back to the game are discovering is that the game isn’t bad at all.
They actually fixed the game prior to release, so it was enjoyable to more people and took to heart what people had to say about what was wrong, pre-release, and fixed it.
But this is not the norm. Many games are reviewed in beta and they are just as bad or not worse upon release. A game, when released, should be like a movie, finished and ready for the public to spend their money on something they will enjoy. But this almost never happens with a game.
More and more games are being released and then updated repeatedly just after it hits computers. This is wrong. You don’t buy a car without tires then have them ship you a set once they figure out all the buggs as to why the tires don’t stay on the cars. Its silly.
But since this is now consider exceptable among most gamers and reviewers, its part of the equation when passing final judgement on a game. People are quick to say a game sucks, because they know that most games come out to the public unfinished and will need polish once its been out a while. So they give it a good review but say things like, a patch is expected soon after release to fix all the reason we didn’t give this game a 5 star rating. Crazy this is to me.
I think we just need to review games as they are released and don’t give the public any hope that the game will get better. I think the game shouldn’t be reviewed in beta because this is the time they should be fixing any issues. The game, once it hits the stores, should be reviewed and a honest opinion should be published.
January 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Lots of points, but I can comment a little.
- In the case of the gaming mainstream media/sites (we know who they are) there is always the advertising money pressure. If we know, and generally accept as much as we don’t like it, that advertisement can and does influence some reviews, it’s even easier for it to influence previews where nothing is set on stone yet, as much as your reviewer spidey sense tells you it is and there’s no way in hell for them to change it on time for launch.
We are generally much more forgiving when previewing, and by default much more positive than perhaps we should be.
The problem with qualifying previews is that they test the reviewer’s ability to put his reputation and balls on the table, so to speak, much more than a review of a finished product. With a review, if something is bugged, doesn’t work or is just poorly implemented, well, it’s there, you are seeing it, everybody is seeing it and that’s it. You can safely call it. Depending on how early you get to do a preview, there’s always the possibility that it can be changed or fixed, so it does take a lot of guts to categorically state “This is broken and I think will never make it fine in time for launch”. There is always the chance you’ll have to eat crow, and eating crow is the #1 indicator that people use to determine your value as a reviewer they will read again; not how often you’re wrong, but how often you ran your mouth and had to retract or correct yourself later.
We’re forgiving with previews basically because we’re shit scared of retractions. They look worse for a reviewer than simple mistakes, no matter the amount of mistakes.
- In the case of bloggers it goes around the same lines, but bloggers are usually more bound by NDAs than not. It goes like this:
* Some betas you just can’t say anything about it, not even mention you’re in it. So nothing is said. The previewing passes through other media.
* Some betas you can’t review, but you are still allowed to comment. In that case, you can’t go it at length because a long collection of subjective comments about a game would be, well, a review. So you condense. And when you condense, unless the game is truly and utterly terrible, the summary always ends up being more positive because the devil is in the details, and you have no room for details.
* Some betas you are allowed to comment, and here there’s a combination of this “not wanting to put your foot in your mouth” about stuff that is not done yet, or simply trying (unconsciously or not) to be gracious back to the people that got you in, so you probably become laxer than you should.
Many bloggers also believe, for right or wrong, that they are not subject to a professional reviewer’s ethics or behavior, and instead they are just guys talking about games on their websites. As in, sure they’ll be fair, but they have no “mandate” to be fair, or “rules” to follow. The result of this is that many think they can be more strict/more lax when they comment, because it’s not such a big deal since they’re not professional reviewers working in the MSM.
“So what if I glow over a preview because I like the game for (x) reasons? I’m not paid to be 100% fair here.”
Before I get stones thrown at me for that comment, mind you that I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing in the case of bloggers. In fact, I don’t think many realize they do it and it happens unconsciously. So no harm done, not in my book at least. No worries.
The solution: Vastly reduce the number of previews given to the MSM/Bloggers to comment on. Let the previews become the PR they truly are, and be handled by the devs/publishers themselves. That way the bias (which is always there) becomes completely apparent and everyone knows what’s up. Let the MSM/bloggers give their impressions on finished, launched products.
Problem with this is that it turns they hype machine this industry runs on way, way too low for today’s tastes. Without previews, whatever will we do, the sky is falling, etc.
I’ll tell you what I always told my fellow reviewers, and if there are any bloggers reading this (”If”, ha…) maybe they can use it: “You have to be fair and objective, as much as you can, when you’re reviewing anything, because it’s the only way to be fair and objective to yourself as well. If you aren’t being honest with your review, you’re really not reviewing; you’re just doing PR for someone else, for free.”
January 30th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I think that most games are fun on the first day, and their longevity is hard to predict. MMORPGs are usually so huge that it takes a while to find out how long it will take to see everything. So I’d say the positive preview bias can partially be explained by people being honest, but having played the game not long enough to have found the flaws.
I agree that bloggers tend to be more likely to say bad things about games, whether that is honest or cynic depends on the case. I guess that is why WAR has an explicit “you can’t play beta if you have a blog” policy.
January 30th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Two points:
1. It is becoming increasingly common for previews, especially in print, to include a quick “looks good” and “looks iffy” summary. Gaming journalists in more established publications are seemingly being given more freedom to call things as they see them. In fact, I seem to recall a series of previews in EGM where a early preview build of a high profile game was strongly criticized and an editor was asked back a few months later to preview a more polished build.
2. The alternatives, let PR guys write previews or stop letting journalists see games until they go gold, aren’t really all that great.
We want previews written by journalists and gamers/ bloggers, not PR guys. Anything written by a PR guy is next to useless. Sure the overall tone of a preview is often misleading. But a journalist isn’t going to make up something or be intentionally misleading.
As for “no previews until a game is set in stone,” that would ill serve the audience that tends to follow gaming blogs and that reads gaming news. We want to know whether something is a good bet at launch, and we would like to have more to go on then the back of the box. I can usually decide just from the feature set mentioned from several independent previews whether a game is ostensibly being developed to cater to my tastes or not. That’s all I’m really looking for in previews, and I know damn well to take previews and beta impressions with a grain of salt.
A preview or beta impression is not the same thing as a review. You decide to bite before the reviews come out, you decide to take a risk. It’s as simple as that.
An aside: “Reviews” written during a beta or from development builds have no business presenting themselves as such. They either mislead the customer (if too positive) or do a disservice to the developers (if too negative).
Every time I see a “review” for an MMO come out the day it is released it makes me want to slap someone. Even if the game was finalized for weeks before launch (unlikely) and you played it to the cap during the beta (even less likely), you have no idea what the servers are going to do on launch day. See WoW.
January 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I usually look for a gameplay video and a demo before purchasing. I can tell alot about a game, if I’m going to like it. Or want to put the effort into “learning” it.
I usually want some past experience with it, if its a sequel.
I seldom purchase a game from a good or bad review.
January 30th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
I like to be fair but honest when reviewing. If it’s BETA then say that and people should know that glaring bugs will likely to be fixed before release. However, huge issues with gaming mechanics, graphics, questing, economy etc. aren’t likely to change much between open BETA and release, so I dont think people should be holding back. Again, fair but honest.
As a consumer, I’m tired of buying games I only play for a week. Or worse, games I pre-order then are still so bad during final beta, that I don’t even bother to open the box when it arrives to install it. I’m all for not wanting to slam a game. However, I don’t know of anything else I buy as a consumer where I’m expected to accept inferior quality while they work it out, after they get my money. It’s just boogling my mind why that’s supposed to be OK. If I happen to have an opportunity to preview a game, I should and do, point out what’s good and bad about that game. And it’s just one opinion anyway, so people shouldn’t sweat being honest. As long as you preface it as preview, impressions and say it was BETA, just be friggin honest.
January 30th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
For clarity, I think I should add that I have absolutely no problem with beta previews as long as they are clearly billed as such. Even “review of the first five levels” is just fine with me. Just be clear and honest.
January 31st, 2008 at 10:13 am
[...] had an interesting article on the Hype Problem surrounding the MMO genre. As he writes, the gaming media is apprehensive about criticizing an MMO [...]
February 1st, 2008 at 8:03 am
[...] 1 02 2008 Cameron’s got a good post and series of comments going on the Hype Problem with new games. Some of these themes have been brought up in the “Are we too nice” [...]
June 8th, 2008 at 4:10 am
It is a troubling situation.
I’ve realized this with game sites awhile ago.
On one hand I want to say “GET IT RIGHT! Quit being nice and give me the real deal BEFORE I preorder it” and on the other hand I realize that companies come to them to get their game name out there, and if a site has the potential of bashing their game, the company will not offer them hands-on tests. The site will then lose hits because they don’t offer the latest information on the newest games.
For the past few years I’ve used popular game review/preview sites to see new games and get information on them, and then find various blogs throughout the internet to get realistic unbias reviews on the games that sparked my interest.
I think review sites put too much on the line previewing a game negatively. True realistic previews are best left to intelligent bloggers.
The people smart enough to realize they’re being fooled by previews have found out where to get real information while the ones who don’t will just have to continue to suffer.
However, the review/preview sites should really find ways to not hype the game and simply deliver information about it.